Problems in Shangri-La-La Land: The Broken Promise of Over-55 Housing

Now that I'm over 55, I've gotten a bit curious about those over 55 housing complexes.

I mean, just what is there about being over 55 that would make someone move into one - other than the likelihood that someone that age is either an empty nester, or is never really going to get around to having kids.

Or is it that they're really aiming for the over 65 set, but want to make people feel not-so-old by seemingly wooing 55-ers and up. (Sort of like those plus-size stores that start at size 12....)

Not that I have any interest in moving into age-segregated housing.

I like the fact that the building I live in supports an age range from 6 weeks to nearly 90 years. It's nice to hear the occasional baby squawk from Gregory-the-newbie, and if I'm as spry as Jack downstairs when I'm 90, well...

And I like living in a community that has a similar age diversity. The neighbors have three kids under 10. There are a couple of private schools in the neighborhood, and I see the kids coming and going from outings. We have a lot of hip young singles floating around. College kids. Middle-agers. And plenty of oldsters, including my neighbor Dick - who's got to be pushing 80 - who (even though he lives half-way down the block) clears the ice-clogged drains on the corner of Beacon and River after every storm. (Unless I beat him to it, in which case he sometimes comes out to supervise.)

At some point, however, I might do one of those congregant living arrangements for the elderly.

My mother spent the last year of her life in one, and enjoyed it immensely. They provided two meals a day, light housekeeping, fix-it repairs, field trips and entertainment. Liz had a bright little one-bedroom apartment - her first "single gal" pad, by the way. The people who lived there and the folks who ran the place all seemed very nice. I'm sure that some day, I'll be ready for just such a living situation. Actually, some days it sounds pretty darned good for right now. Even though it's not that big a deal to throw a couple of blueberries on my bowl of Kashi Go-Lean, some days I wouldn't mind if all I had to do was walk down to breakfast...

In any event, I was interested in a recent article on over-55 housing that appeared in The Boston Globe that talked about how some of the local complexes, unable to sell out to the gray-beards, are trying to wiggle out of the age restrictions they've set.

It's the age-old story: everyone thinks it's a good idea to build over-55 housing, so everybody goes ahead and builds it, but:

...[W]ith more than 20,000 new over-55 units built statewide since 2000, builders ... are saying that age restrictions, formerly a hot marketing tool, are now hampering sales.

So the developers are going to the towns where they've built, and looking to be released from the burden of over-55 - much to the annoyance of those who bought in to the marketing promise that they were moving into a "sort of retirement Shangri-La."

It's not clear that they'll all be successful.

Joanne Foley, a lawyer for MP Development, a partnership between Hudson developer Tony Frias and Jonathan Kraft [whose development was featured in the article], said the developers have a right under state law to achieve an economic return.

Under Massachusetts law, local cities and towns cannot mandate zoning conditions that prevent sales, even though the over-55 limits were first proposed and enthusiastically pushed by the developers themselves, she said.

While these places are unlikely to have amenities designed to appeal to families with kids, I'm not sure most standard apartment buildings do, either. (Other than laundry in the basement, and the fact that our building is just across from a beautiful park, the units in our building are clearly not built for families. Which is why, although we've had any number of babies in the building, we don't tend to have many kids beyond toddler age. The families move into bigger digs, with more growing space for the kids. I think the oldest child we ever had here was 4 years old.)

So, the developers are nervous they won't make their investment back. The towns are doubly nervous: unfilled units mean unpaid taxes; while units with families means more burden on the schools. And the over-55ers who thought they would only have to deal with colicky babies, toddlers careening around on Big Wheels, and sullen teenagers on skateboards, when they're grandkids come to visit. And now they're living in fear that Shangri-la has become just another place to live.

Frankly, worse things could happen to them.

And just think about the upside: given that the baby-boom is followed by a baby-bust, when it comes time to sell, these over-55-ers won't have that many people to sell to if the complexes remain age-restricted. Of course, at that point it's not likely to be their problem, now, is it.